OCZ Vertex 450 256GB SSD Full Review - Indilinx drives 20nm flash

PCPer File Copy Test

Our custom PCPer-FC test does some fairly simple file creation and copy routines in order to test the storage system for speed. The script creates a set of files of varying sizes, times the creation process, then copies the same files to another partition on the same hard drive and times the copy process as well. There are four file patterns that we used to try and find any strong or weak points in the hardware: 10 files @ 1000 MB each, 100 files @ 100 MB each, 500 files @ 10 MB each and 1000 files at 1 MB each.

File copy and creation is nearly identical across the board. The Vertex 4 suffers some slow downs - a known issue that occurs when SandForce addresses >256GB of flash.

...so should I just quote other reviewers that openly state the M500 is a "middle-of-the-pack" drive? The only thing it has on the competition is its availability in a high capacity (960GB), and at that price, supply is so constained that in nearly a month there are only 7 newegg reviews. Oh, and it's still out of stock. Bonus.

That quote is from the same review site you claim to be superior further down in the posts here. Perhaps you should actually read their reviews instead of randomly fluffing and bashing.

Iometer 2007 writes data that is less compressible compared to newer builds. We stuck with 2007 because newer versions were giving an excessively unfair advantage to SandForce controllers. The most recent 1.1.0 RC1 added a selection box for data compressibility, but the results have proven inconsistent in my testing and I believe it's not ready for production use (it's an RC after all). This is the result of weeks / months of my own research covering several platforms and dozens of different SSD models.

Newer versions of PCMark are running similar / slightly tweaked traces and add a bunch of extra results that tend to confuse people more than the necessary result of just figuring out which drives perform better than others. Alternatively, some sites will just publish the "storage suite" figure of the newer PCMark versions (a *single number*), to avoid such confusion. I feel that dumbs down the results too far to be meaningful. PCMark 05 gives us a few *good* results of sufficient granularity to evaluate drive performance. We use Vantage for SSD caching tests mainly because it hits the drive with IO's over a larger test file, which is more representative of OS / application launches which would need to be cached.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I do not subscribe to the megapixel race of benchmarks. Graphics benches must be updated to support newer technology. The only new tech beyond AHCI for SSDs is TRIM, which *no* benchmarks support as it occurs on the kernel level, meaning that all of those shiney new benchmarks you see out there do nothing more than use different IO patterns that are not necessarily better or more representative of real world usage.

The 2010 versions of IOmeter are perfectly fine and used by all manufacturers and validation houses for testing purposes. Let me help you a bit here since your month of discovery didn't figure it out...it is only the Psuedo random that provides inconsistent results, and for a purpose. It is meant to test varying compressibility workloads.
The incompressible and fully compressible settings are just fine. The 100% compressible data is the exact same as the version that you are using. 2007 writes the same 100% compressible data, so claiming that the other versions give unrealistic results is ludicrous, you are using the very version that leans most favorably to SF controllers. Iometer 2010 has other architectural changes that also allow it to interface with modern drivers and operating systems in a more efficient manner. To claim that there 'no new tech other than ACHI' only illustrates your lack of complete knowledge of this subject. Disappointing.
PCM05 is outdated, period. There is a reason that benchmarking technology advances and improves, and that is to be more representative of the 'new normal'. How much uncompressed high definition (1080P, 4K) do you think they were doing in 2005? Has anyone even heard of F-Secure, the program used for virus testing in that bench? Do you really feel that this is representative of today's enhanced, newer, more efficient virus programs? It is a defunct program.
It also uses traces from 3dmark 2001. what were they testing back then, DOOM? Go back and read the blurb above your own results, and then tell us that those tests really have anything to do with today's usage. You are almost ten years behind. This is why your test results have lost relevance, and also why these reviews arent held in as high esteem as they were even a few years ago.
Leadtek® Winfast® DVD??? are you kidding me? This isn't about racing to get new benchmarks, or trying to keep up with the Joneses. This is about presenting relevant data to your readers to further their purchasing decisions, and this isn't doing it. Not even close.
Lazyness is what it is.

"Alternatively, some sites will just publish the "storage suite" figure of the newer PCMark versions (a *single number*), to avoid such confusion."

What a ridiculous statement. There are a total of 6 traces in the HDD test for PCMark Vantage and PCMark 7. It outputs results in all of those categories. Have you even bothered to run these programs?
You are testing fresh out of box results on unconditioned SSDs, it is the most unrealistic results that you can possibly provide. This is like some joke from thessdreview.
Here, let me give you an example of real testing...http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/06/05/sandisk_240_gb_extreme_ii_ssd_...

Ok, so you showed me a page that takes a similar round of results and just spreads them out over 6 charts instead of my spreading those same results over two charts. More != better.

I've run PCMark Vantage and PCMark 7 on all SSDs tested since those benches were released. Vantage is good for demonstrating the effects of caching under Intel RST and SSHD configs, but that difference comes from the way the different benchmark lays down the test file.

SSD'S in general......I have both types of drives. I do video editing. Not that big of a differance in performance by the way.. The biggest let down was when ( no lectures about backing up please) One drive failed. The very expensive data salvage co. said everything was lost. "If it was a HDD, we could have retrieved the data off the platters". Make sure you back up everything if you want to use one of these drives. These drives, at this point, are a disapointment. Maybe after a few years I will check back.